indicate that on May 9, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor rejected the evidence, considering it unnecessary.16 19. On May 30, 2005, the Office of the Sixth Prosecutor sought a declaration of nullity of the decision by the Twenty-Fifth Judge of Control, on the grounds that no notice had been given of the brief filed by the defense, accordingly it had not had an opportunity to defend itself.17On July 6, 2005, the Court of Appeals found null and void the decision by the Twenty-Fifth Judge of Control not to rule on the relevance of the testimony offered and ordered that another judge of control rule on the defense’s brief. On August 10, 2005, the defense filed a brief with the TwentyFifth Judge of Control insisting on admission of the testimony offered and on compliance with the decision of the Court of Appeals. 20. On September 30, 2005, the defense submitted a brief for anticipated production of evidence in the form of a statement by Pedro Carmona Estanga before the Twenty-Fifth Judge of Control. On October 20, 2005, the request was declared unfounded 18based on Pedro Carmona Estanga also being indicted in the case, so his statement would have not probative value. They indicate that they once again filed the statement by Pedro Carmona; that it was rejected by the same judge, that they filed a motion of recusal against him for having issued an opinion once again on the same issue; and that the motion for recusal was rejected based on the judge not having issued a pronouncement on the guilt or innocence of Allan Brewer Carías. They note that finally they submitted the statement by Pedro Carmona in writing and they allege that he has been “ignored” by the judge. In addition, they argue that a paragraph was quoted from the book by Pedro Carmona Estanga19 in the accusation against Allan Brewer Carías without taking into account another paragraph of the same book in which Pedro Carmona notes that he had never attributed the authorship of the decree in question to him.20 21. They note that by discretional and arbitrary decision of the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor, the defense of Allan Brewer Carías was not allowed to be present in the examination of the witnesses called to testify before her. They indicate that in some cases the prosecutor admitted questions in writing, but it was not possible to present them in the case of supervening witnesses who came forward in the course of the investigation and who gave statements in secret. They specifically note that on October 5, 2005, testimony was taken from General Lucas Rincón, with the defense having been convened or notified. Decision of May 9, 2005, in which it was considered that in the request the defense did not indicate what it was seeking to prove, which facts in the indictment they were going to refute with its filing of new evidence, and as it was considered that the request was not in line with what is established in Article 198 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that: “… a means of evidence, to be admitted, should refer directly or indirectly to the object of the investigation and be useful for discovering the truth.” Annex 35 to the original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 101. 17 The Prosecutor indicates that from the date of Allan Brewer Carías’s indictment, January 27, 2005, up until May 9, 2005, “have reviewed all the exhibits during 47 working days, of 67 that have elapsed. A certificate of review has been prepared of each and every one of the times that they have requested and reviewed the record and it has been set forth in this brief to show the falsity of the accusations made by attorney ALLAN BREWER CARIAS and his defense counsel.” Request for nullity by the Provisional Prosecutor of June 30, 2005, Annex 12 to the original petition received on January 24, 2007. 18 Decision of the Twenty-Fifth Judge of Control of October 20, 2005. Annex 30 to the original petition received January 24, 2007. 19 “Numerous opinions were received. Civilian and military jurists were heard, among them Messrs. Allan Brewer-Carías, Carlos Ayala Corao, … and numerous political actors, but it cannot be said that their opinions were fully set forth or that its drafting can be attributed to them.” Pedro Carmona. Testimonio ante la historia, Caracas 2004, p. 95, Annex 3 to the original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 103. 20 “… I never attributed to Mr. Brewer-Carías the authorship of the Decree, for it would be irresponsible…. I even respect the differences that Mr. Brewer expressed in relation to the path chosen and what he said in the record in his interview with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, even though I take issue with some of his interpretations.” See Pedro Carmona. Testimonio ante la historia, Caracas 2004, p. 108, Annex 3 to the original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 105. 16 5